Fox Business Network

The Fox & Friends Blog

An incredulous North Carolina mother was banned from Facebook for 24-hours after the social media giant labeled a picture she uploaded of her two-year-old daughter, 'pornographic'.Photographer, Jill White said that she fell foul of Facebook's notoriously strict guidelines on posting nude children after they received a complaint about her innocent recreation of the famous 'Copperton girl' pose from the 1950s ad campaign.Mrs White's profile was suspended from the site for a day after she ignored a request to remove an unedited version of the photo that shows daughter Willa's bathing suit being pulled down on July 3.She replaced that picture with a version that has a smiley face 'emoji' over her backside instead, but that too was reported, but Facebook has said that this picture meets their terms and conditions.

The original Coppertone advertisement showed a little girl's swimming costume being pulled down by a small dog, to expose her backside and Mrs White said she was at the beach recently near her Hickory home when she decided to recreate it.'I posted the photo on Coppertone's Facebook,' White told WBTV. 'We thought it would be cute because of the old Coppertone ad and her tan line looked like that.'

However, someone reported the picture to Facebook because they found the image of the little girl's bare backside offensive.Responding, Facebook sent her a notice asking her to either delete the picture, change her privacy settings so that the picture was not public or to ignore.

'Well I ignored it,' Mrs White said. 'No way did I think it would fit the criteria of nudity or pornography and if you read the terms of use in settings no where does it state that this would be considered either.'Facebook disagreed with this and banned White from the site for 24 hours.This is because according to their terms and conditions which all members sign up to, the social media giant can 'remove content that violates our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.'If we determine you've posted something that violates our terms, you may receive a warning or become disabled, depending on how severe the violation is.'White told WBTV that she could not post the picture to her personal profile nor the fan page she had created for her photography firm.'It is hard. With over 1 billion people using Facebook we have to put in place a set of universal guidelines that respect the views of a wide range of people. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for everyone on Facebook,' said a Facebook spokesman to MailOnline.

Indeed, when her ban was lifted she altered the picture slightly to reflect sensitivities and reposted this new image.'I got back on with another photo, this time a big Emoji face on the area of the butt crack,' she said.'Now it is being reviewed again for nudity and pornography.'Facebook have said that they have examined this photograph and find it meets their terms and conditions.'Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved,' the Terms of Service state.'We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance.'Mrs White says neither of the photos she posted should be considered pornographic.'I despise pornography and anything to do with it,” she said. “I would never ever post a pornographic photo. I am anti-porn.'White also told WBTV that the mother of the other little girl agreed for her to post the photo.'Actually, she is the one that insisted,' Mrs White said. 'I am outraged about this.'